# Rock > Ice?!??!!



## Kabigon (Jul 19, 2012)

What. So I'm going through brycen's gym and I talk to the guide. He says blah blah fire, and fighting beat ice. Then he says *ground and rock beat ice?*

I've been playing Pokemon since the start and I do not remember this ever being mentioned. I don't use rock types like that and I think Roggenrola is the first type Ash has caught so I could understand that... but still, has this been in like, every game?!


----------



## Coloursfall (Jul 19, 2012)

Yes...? At least as far as Rock goes, anyway. Ground isn't and never was good against Ice (though it is _weak_ to it)


----------



## sv_01 (Jul 19, 2012)

Rock and Steel maybe...


----------



## ultraviolet (Jul 19, 2012)

Woah, I had no idea that was a thing. Kind of like how I learnt bug was supereffective to dark (what), like, last year.
why yes I am a great pokemon master how did you know


----------



## Butterfree (Jul 19, 2012)

Yes, Rock and Steel have always been super-effective against Ice. They can break it easily, hence weakness.

Ground isn't, though, and if the Gym guide is saying that, he's wrong.


----------



## Autumn (Jul 19, 2012)

ultraviolet said:


> Woah, I had no idea that was a thing. Kind of like how I learnt bug was supereffective to dark (what), like, last year.
> why yes I am a great pokemon master how did you know


I only learned Rock was super effective on Bug a couple years ago despite having the type chart down some time before that haha.


----------



## ElectricTogetic (Jul 19, 2012)

Huh. Do many people not know stuff about the type chart?  I remember picking up on it rather easily.


----------



## Kabigon (Jul 19, 2012)

Ash has never used a Rock type before so I have never heard that from the anime and a lot of Rock tpes are part ground so I would never try to switch in with them because they always had a super effective move. I  understand why I missed this but it still doesn't make it any more believable.


----------



## Adriane (Jul 19, 2012)

There are reasons Ice is considered to be the worst defensive type in the game, and at the fore of reasoning are its weaknesses to Rock (in which it has been since generation 1) and Fighting. See also: Stealth Rock.

Also, Clyde never claimed Ice is weak to Ground: _"Please take this Fresh Water! Ice can be melted with Fire or  shattered with Fighting. Or you might want to smash it into dust with  Rock or Steel."_


----------



## DarkAura (Jul 19, 2012)

Throw a rock at a chunk of ice. See which one breaks. ;)

The ground < ice is probably because of how snow easily covers the ground during winter or some other reason that makes sense.

But whoa, bug > dark? I thought it was only fighting that could beat dark. which is just silly, considering it's much too hard to fight in the dark and how could you even fight  something that you can't even touch? It's darkness, it's only there because of no light


----------



## Butterfree (Jul 19, 2012)

You guys are weird. >:/ How can you _not_ have studied the type chart in excruciating detail and internalized it to the point that bugs beating darkness seems to make total sense?!

Granted, there are a couple of uncommon resistances I still look up to be absolutely sure (Poison against Ghost, etc.), but I don't think I could forget what's weak to what if I tried.


----------



## Dar (Jul 19, 2012)

The reason ice beats ground is because when water in the ground freezes, it can be caused to crack. It works the same way with rocks, but the thing Pinkamena said about throwing a rock at ice makes more sense.


----------



## ElectricTogetic (Jul 19, 2012)

Butterfree said:


> You guys are weird. >:/ How can you _not_ have studied the type chart in excruciating detail and internalized it to the point that bugs beating darkness seems to make total sense?!


I, for one, don't bother to look up type charts; I figured the whole thing out from my first file in Pearl version.  there's enough variety of pokemon that you can actually find type weknesses without trying. the other thing was that I sort of innately knew all the stuff that made sense:  flying is weak to ice because it's too cold to fly, for example.  Of course, I figured out the more obscure ones because I would always fall back on my luxray to counter anything that super-effective'd my Infernape: I used Spark on one of the Staravias on Cycling Road, for example.

So, have I out-wierded everyone yet?  I found out the stuff with EXPERIMENTATION. When I was EIGHT.:sunglasses:


----------



## Coloursfall (Jul 19, 2012)

^ I think that's generally how most of us old people did it too when R/B first came out - I never had a fancy internet typechart to look at and I learned the type matchups pretty well, as screwy as they were in R/B, and I was 7, sooo.

However, when the internet happened I think we just decided it was easier to look it up and memorize it with the G/S changes to the chart. So no, that's not gonna weird most people out. Sorry dude.


----------



## ElectricTogetic (Jul 19, 2012)

Meh.  I wasn't especially trying to wierd people out.  I didn't really know what the internet was at the time that I figured out the type chart.


----------



## Spatz (Jul 20, 2012)

Poison's ineffectiveness against ghost is due to, how are you supposed to affect the undead with a poison?


----------



## ultraviolet (Jul 20, 2012)

Butterfree said:


> You guys are weird. >:/ How can you _not_ have studied the type chart in excruciating detail and internalized it to the point that bugs beating darkness seems to make total sense?!
> 
> Granted, there are a couple of uncommon resistances I still look up to be absolutely sure (Poison against Ghost, etc.), but I don't think I could forget what's weak to what if I tried.


well I mean I guess I only remember stuff that I actually use, and I don't remember really using bug- or rock- types until BW really. I've had dark-types before, but I mean how often are bug type pokemon actually a threat before BW or (I guess) DPPt?

Also I have never understood the division between ground and rock. They're the ~same thing~.


----------



## DarkAura (Jul 20, 2012)

Lirris said:


> Poison's ineffectiveness against ghost is due to, how are you supposed to affect the undead with a poison?


uh, no? Poison effects it, Ghost just resists it. The way you worded it, it's like you meant immune. >>

Anyway, I never got how Dragons are weak to Ice...

EDIT: uv, they're not the ~same thing~. Rocks are thinks you chuck at birds and bugs, and Ground is the thing we walk on, unless you are Charlie Sheen and all the drugs you take causes you to walk on air.


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate (Jul 20, 2012)

Pinkamena said:


> Anyway, I never got how Dragons are weak to Ice...


Coldblooded? Dunno. I just assume that type effectiveness is drawn from invisible energy fields and ignore any logic or lack thereof.


----------



## Ether's Bane (Jul 20, 2012)

Pinkamena said:


> But whoa, bug > dark? I thought it was only fighting that could beat dark. which is just silly, considering it's much too hard to fight in the dark and how could you even fight  something that you can't even touch? It's darkness, it's only there because of no light


These are my headcanon explanations.

Bug > Dark: Many insects are nocturnal and are thus more active in the dark.
Fighting > Dark: Okay, look at some of the Dark-type moves. Taunt. Torment. Flatter. Fake Tears. Foul Play. All these involve attempting to toy with your opponent's mental state. (Not mind-waves, though - that's Psychic.) Fighting beats Dark because how do you counter mind games in combat? By beating the living hell out of the other guy.


----------



## hopeandjoy (Jul 20, 2012)

Fighting beats Dark because Fighting is all about martial arts and Dark is all about dirty tricks. The more noble fighters win, you see.

All of Psychic's weaknesses (except Steel) are psychological stuff. (Fear of Bug(s), Dark moves being under handed, Ghosts being freaky.)

I really started getting into Pokémon in R/S (mostly because I had just learned to read during GSC), and I learned the chart partly through experimentation, commonsense, and the type chart in my game guide.

Of course, as I only trained my starter without grinding, it was all for naught.


----------



## Connoiseusse Burgundy (Jul 20, 2012)

hopeandjoy said:


> All of Psychic's weaknesses (except Steel) are psychological stuff. (Fear of Bug(s), Dark moves being under handed, Ghosts being freaky.)


I always interpreted it as Psychic's weaknesses all being common fears.


----------



## Zero Moment (Jul 20, 2012)

hopeandjoy said:


> All of Psychic's weaknesses (except Steel)


Psychic.... isn't weak to Steel?


----------



## ultraviolet (Jul 20, 2012)

Lyra Heartstrings said:


> These are my headcanon explanations.
> 
> Bug > Dark: Many insects are nocturnal and are thus more active in the dark.


I thought that too at first, but many insects aren't. there are lots of ~all kinds~ of animals that are nocturnal, not just insects. idk my headcanon is 'because parasites maybe???' but even then that's pretty silly. 



			
				hopeandjoy said:
			
		

> All of Psychic's weaknesses (except Steel) are psychological stuff.  (Fear of Bug(s), Dark moves being under handed, Ghosts being freaky.)


psychic isn't weak to steel, steel resists psychic.



			
				Pinkamena said:
			
		

> uv, they're not the ~same thing~. Rocks are thinks you chuck at birds  and bugs, and Ground is the thing we walk on, unless you are Charlie  Sheen and all the drugs you take causes you to walk on air.


... what the hell do you think the ground is made from? o.o sand is variable depending on where you get it from, but it's commonly broken down rocks and shell fragments at beaches; volcanic sand is made... from broken down rocks and minerals; dirt is broken down rocks and organic matter.  'the thing we walk on', or the lithosphere, is _made from rock_. Groudon, who represents the lithosphere, is a ground-type. Conceptually, the two types are muddled. I get they're not the exact same thing, but they're similar enough that it seems odd to separate them conceptually. Most ground type pokemon are based on different types of sand based on what biome you find it in (desert, muddy lakes, 'underground'), and initially there weren't any pure rock types. It kinda feels like they added ground or rock as an afterthought to build up the type chart. I can get the difference between water and ice as types, because the difference between water and ice in cultural consciousness is pretty massive. They do different things for us and have different associated legends. Rock and ground are more or less grouped together, unless you're talking gemstones, which is oddly only used as a motif in pokemon pretty occasionally (and then you have lots of pokemon that do have gemstones on them, like sableye and golduck and persian, but aren't rock or ground types).
I mean it seems like it would be way more consistent to just chuck them all together into an 'earth' type or something, but whatever.

edit: even the fossils are inconsistent; all fossil pokemon are rock-types, despite the fact that Aerodactyl, while generated from a fossil, is not actually generated from a rock. It's regenerated from Old Amber, which is suggested to have a blood-sucking insect inside containing Aerodactyl DNA, a la Jurassic Park. Idk if this was an oversight by Game Freak, or if prehistoric = rock in the pokemon world (which doesn't make any sense). And then all the fossils pokemon are primarily rock type and have a secondary type (like rock/flying for archen), except for tirtourga/carracosta, which are water/rock.


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate (Jul 20, 2012)

Dark pokémon are defined by their underhanded/dishonorable tactics. Bug pokémon have a psychology and definition of honor that differs greatly from other creatures' (it's basically 'help people maybe' vs 'PROTECT THE HIVE', respectively) that Dark pokémon just can't quite deal with as well.

Of course, again, my personal running theory is that pokémon and pokémon attacks all have a personal energy field that interacts with each other Type of energy field in a unique, arbitrary manner. Thus, a sandshrew's Ground type aura would impede an Electric move entirely, a Flamethrower cuts through a Grass type's aura like butter and thus do extra damage, etc.


----------



## Aisling (Jul 20, 2012)

Butterfree said:


> Granted, there are a couple of uncommon resistances I still look up to be absolutely sure (Poison against Ghost, etc.)


If it ever comes up in conversation (or any of the type relationships between psychic, ghost, and poison), I always say "It's because they're purple" and everybody always just nods


----------



## sv_01 (Jul 20, 2012)

I think I've understood Steel's resistance to Dragon.
-Dragons partly attack your emotions with their awesomeness. Steel-types tend to be robots or dinosaurs, which aren't too emotional.
-It can also be mythology versus science, imagination against cold reality, and stuff. Dragons are ancient, metal is generally high-tech.
-And also knights.
So basically the dragon sees a brave warrior in shining armor, the Steel-type sees a large reptile, and this is the result.
Ghost and Dark have the problem that Steel-types aren't too easy to creep out, and the resistance to Psychic is there because robots have an entirely different mind. And again, magic vs science. (No reference to Homestuck! That was Dark vs. Psychic, because deep sea glowies should be Dark!)

As for Poison and Ghost, how are you supposed to poison a ghost?

Back to Rock and Ice: Well, ice is fragile. Explains Steel and Fighting as well.


----------



## ultraviolet (Jul 20, 2012)

Alraune said:


> If it ever comes up in conversation (or any of the type relationships between psychic, ghost, and poison), I always say "It's because they're purple" and everybody always just nods


I love everything about this


----------



## 1. Luftballon (Jul 21, 2012)

the ghost/bug/poison things that can get confusing

unfortunately bug is not purple so I can't just

is bug/poison mutual resistance ... no, wait, bug nve poison and poison neu bug, right. eh bug and poison terrible coverage anyway and have no useful accurate moves and are only maybe useful as a secondary stab coverage move next to water which pretty much means water/poison because nothing useful water/bug. feh. that's silly.


----------



## sv_01 (Jul 21, 2012)

I think Bug is not very effective against Poison about for the same reason as Grass is. And ghosts just aren't physical enough.

Bug and Fighting are mutual resistance... Maybe because they are so different.


----------



## DarkAura (Jul 21, 2012)

ultraviolet said:


> ... what the hell do you think the ground is made from? o.o sand is variable depending on where you get it from, but it's commonly broken down rocks and shell fragments at beaches; volcanic sand is made... from broken down rocks and minerals; dirt is broken down rocks and organic matter.  'the thing we walk on', or the lithosphere, is _made from rock_. Groudon, who represents the lithosphere, is a ground-type. Conceptually, the two types are muddled. I get they're not the exact same thing, but they're similar enough that it seems odd to separate them conceptually. Most ground type pokemon are based on different types of sand based on what biome you find it in (desert, muddy lakes, 'underground'), and initially there weren't any pure rock types. It kinda feels like they added ground or rock as an afterthought to build up the type chart. I can get the difference between water and ice as types, because the difference between water and ice in cultural consciousness is pretty massive. They do different things for us and have different associated legends. Rock and ground are more or less grouped together, unless you're talking gemstones, which is oddly only used as a motif in pokemon pretty occasionally (and then you have lots of pokemon that do have gemstones on them, like sableye and golduck and persian, but aren't rock or ground types).
> I mean it seems like it would be way more consistent to just chuck them all together into an 'earth' type or something, but whatever.


...That's like saying everything's the same because they originated from the same place. While they may have been the same at one point, they both became two different things.


Anyway I was just wondering, would a Steel/Dragon type have no weaknesses?


----------



## Superbird (Jul 21, 2012)

Dragon/Steel is weak to Ground and fighting. 

As for actual no-weakness type combinations, 





			
				TCoD Main Site said:
			
		

> The only possible type combination without a weakness is Dark/Ghost (technically, using Foresight will negate Ghost's immunities and thus make Fighting super effective, but under normal circumstances it has no weakness). Meanwhile, there are several one-weakness type combinations: pure Normal (weak to Fighting), pure Electric (weak to Ground), Normal/Ghost (weak to Dark), Water/Ground (doubly weak to Grass), Water/Dragon (weak to Dragon), Poison/Dark (weak to Ground), Psychic/Dark (doubly weak to Bug) and Bug/Steel (doubly weak to Fire). Interestingly, we have abilities that provide functional immunities to both Ground (Levitate), Fire (Flash Fire) and Grass (Sap Sipper), making Electric, Poison/Dark, Bug/Steel and Water/Ground Pokémon with no weaknesses possible (although Poison/Dark is also subject to the same loophole as Dark/Ghost, namely its weakness to Psychic under Miracle Eye, and the abilites Mold Breaker, Turboblaze and Teravolt will negate all three abilities, as well as the move Gravity negating Levitate). In the fifth generation we finally got such a Pokémon, the Levitating Electric eel family of Tynamo, Eelektrik and Eelektross.


----------



## ultraviolet (Jul 22, 2012)

Great and Powerful Trixie said:


> ...That's like saying everything's the same because they originated from the same place. While they may have been the same at one point, they both became two different things.


that's not at all what I'm saying; note that I said that water/ice doesn't bother me even though they are _literally_ the same thing.  They have different cultural associations and legends from each other and therefore more things to make pokemon creatures out of. Ground and rock don't do this! Ground and rock are really muddled and inconsistent with each other and that's why I question whether they were separate types initially. I even _said _'I get they're not the exact same thing'!

I made an example of rocks and the ground being the same thing because how you defined them makes no sense ('the thing we walk on' or, 'the ground', _is made_ from rock. that's why it's called the lithosphere). I mean, even in the common consciousness they're kinda muddled - wikipedia gives you a couple of pages for 'ground', the first of which is 'the earth's surface (which redirects to lithosphere), and then soil. I'm also finding it hard to find different references in mythology between rock and the ground! I mean the easiest examples I can think of off the top of my head are golems, which are commonly thought of as being made from clay or mud (i.e., ground) - not necessarily the case (wiki says 'inanimate matter') - but then you have Regirock (which is a rock-type) and Golem (a rock/ground type). 

also way to ignore most of what I said and just reply to the first thing. that's kinda rude.


----------



## sovram (Jul 23, 2012)

Great and Powerful Trixie said:


> ...That's like saying everything's the same because they originated from the same place. While they may have been the same at one point, they both became two different things.


but they are like, _literally the same thing_, almost analogous to how water is the same thing as ice! if you take a rock and break it in half, is it now somehow a different thing? like, sure, it's broken, but what else would you call it besides "part of a rock"? it's still _rock_ and still has the same characteristics: melting point would be similar (might take less time because there is less material but idk), hardness, minerals contained, &c. 

so while we have different words for what we think of as rock and what we think of as "ground" (sand, soil, &c.), they are, with the exception of organic matter mixed in, made of the exact same stuff and so should behave extremely similarly -- i don't think even the addition of organic matter should do much, at least not in the sense of pokemon type match-ups. 

~why are we arguing about this~


----------



## sv_01 (Jul 23, 2012)

The difference is that rock is hard. You don't break windows by throwing mud or sand on them.


----------



## Vipera Magnifica (Jul 23, 2012)

After playing the games for so long, I just accept the fact that ground somehow beats steel without questioning it.


----------



## Adriane (Jul 23, 2012)

Vehement Mustelid said:


> After playing the games for so long, I just accept the fact that ground somehow beats steel without questioning it.


I would imagine the same way it beats Rock. More importantly, Steel needs _some_ weaknesses.


----------



## sovram (Jul 23, 2012)

sv_01 said:


> The difference is that rock is hard. You don't break windows by throwing mud or sand on them.


sand is still hard -- i established that it's made out of the exact same material as rock, and so should retain the same properties -- but it's just that rock is rigid as opposed to sand which is slightly more fluid (not the right word at all, but i can't think of what else to call it). you can still break things -- maybe windows, i've never broken a window with a rock and i can't imagine it's actually very easy -- with clumps of sand or dirt; at the very least i know clumps of sand or dirt can hurt, if they're well clumped. should we really distinguish rock and ground based on rigidity??

anyway, uv has an excellent point about there not being any pure rock types. if moves are distinguished between rock and ground solely on how rigid the type of material we're talking about is, isn't that ... just really stupid? why couldn't there be earth-type moves that use rocks and moves that use dirt? i think it's just a silly, arbitrary distinction. 

water and ice makes some sense, even though they are the same substance, because of the phase change. ice is weak to fire because the temperature will force a phase change, okay. why isn't water weak to fire for the same reason? water can put out fires but i don't think it's because it's _water_ because can't you do the same thing with sand or other things? i don't think ice > flying makes a whole lot of sense either!

POKEMON METAPHYSICS


----------



## Superbird (Jul 23, 2012)

I think 'ground' mainly refers to the manipulation of the ground and power drawn directly from the earth, while 'rock' refers to physical attacks using dense rocks and boulders.


----------



## Adriane (Jul 23, 2012)

sovram said:


> anyway, uv has an excellent point about there not being any pure rock types. if moves are distinguished between rock and ground solely on how rigid the type of material we're talking about is, isn't that ... just really stupid? why couldn't there be earth-type moves that use rocks and moves that use dirt? i think it's just a silly, arbitrary distinction.


I used to think that, and then the Roggenrola line happened.


----------



## sovram (Jul 23, 2012)

Birdy said:


> I think 'ground' mainly refers to the manipulation of the ground and power drawn directly from the earth, while 'rock' refers to physical attacks using dense rocks and boulders.


i guess that's the most sensible, but sandstorm and ancientpower both fit that description and are rock-type. incidentally, stuff like wide guard and head smash are rock too, but they seem like they should be fighting! also, bone club and bone rush seem arbitrarily ground-type when they might fit better as rock.

but the point is that the distinction is silly, that it might make more sense just to have one "earth" type that encompasses all of that. i noticed that both rock and ground only have a handful of moves to their names.



> I used to think that, and then the Roggenrola line happened.


okay, well, i did not know there was a pure-rock. but how does it change anything? it still learns ground-type moves. it doesn't seem, to me, to be more "rocky" than geodude or graveler. note that its dream ability, sand force, strengthens rock, ground, _and_ steel type moves; i think it's the only ability that raises the attack power of more than one type, and hints to me that they realize that the types are very closely related. but this might be a very small detail.


----------



## surskitty (Jul 23, 2012)

nosepass is also rock and not ground :V and sudowoodo


----------



## ElectricTogetic (Jul 23, 2012)

Guys, look.  Rock, Steel, and Ground types are based on different PROPERTIES of the same material.  As with all the types, the types are not based on science - they are based on different ideas of these things.  Ground actually IS based on the ground we walk on, and it is separate because it is traditionally viewed as fundamentally different from rocks that we throw (which is what the Rock type is based on) because it is less dense.  Steel has incredibly different properties from unseparated rock, as it is harder, easier to work, and stronger.
as for the typing of the moves,  in general, moves are typed in association with different pokemon.  Sandstorm is Rock type because it was associated with Tyranitar when it was made.  Head Smash is the pseudo-signature move of Rampardos, and it is only learned by rock types.

Anyways, there's my two cents.  can we stop fighting about the way a game was coded now?


----------



## Adriane (Jul 23, 2012)

sovram said:


> okay, well, i did not know there was a pure-rock. but how does it change anything? it still learns ground-type moves. it doesn't seem, to me, to be more "rocky" than geodude or graveler. note that its dream ability, sand force, strengthens rock, ground, _and_ steel type moves; i think it's the only ability that raises the attack power of more than one type, and hints to me that they realize that the types are very closely related. but this might be a very small detail.


I said that somewhat facetiously; Gigalith is very obviously the Golem of gen V, much like Conkledurr is Machamp (they're even all trade evos!). It just puzzles me that they made Gigalith pure-Rock vs. Rock/Ground. Maybe they were just trying to be charitable in alleviating it of 4x Water/Grass weaknesses, or something.

(Nosepass and Sudowoodo also exist, of course, but they don't make... un-sense to me like Gigalith does. Sudowoodo's composition seems... unusual/obscure, and Nosepass does gain Steel-typing upon evolution.)



ElectricTogetic said:


> Sandstorm is Rock type because it was  associated with Tyranitar when it was made.  Head Smash is the  pseudo-signature move of Rampardos, and it is only learned by rock  types.


Eh, I guess Tyranitar does get Sandstorm as a level 1 move, but there are others who get it via level up, too. Plus basically all rock/ground/steel-types _and then some_ via TM. Also Emboar, Scrafty, Nidoking, Donphan, and Hydreigon all get Head Smash.


----------



## hopeandjoy (Jul 23, 2012)

Ice > Flying is because ice freezes the wings.


----------



## ultraviolet (Jul 24, 2012)

ElectricTogetic said:


> Guys, look.  Rock, Steel, and Ground types are based on different PROPERTIES of the same material.  As with all the types, the types are not based on science - they are based on different ideas of these things.  Ground actually IS based on the ground we walk on, and it is separate because it is traditionally viewed as fundamentally different from rocks that we throw (which is what the Rock type is based on) because it is less dense.  Steel has incredibly different properties from unseparated rock, as it is harder, easier to work, and stronger.


Okay, first of all: I am cool with steel being a separate type. Steel gives a great venue for game freak to design a whole bunch of man-made/robot-themed pokemon like magnezone and pawniard and metagross. Like, there's actually a whole theme missing to pokemon without the steel type; conceptually steel is a pretty neat type. Steel (which is kind of representative of 'metal', not necessarily just steel) has a whole bunch of cultural associations to draw from to make pokemon with - robots, ancient tools, knights, magnets, weapons - all kinds of stuff. 

But the fact is, even game freak can't seem to decide what the different ideas of rock and ground actually mean. Out of the pure rock pokemon, probably only the roggenrola line are based from 'rocks we throw at things'* - cranidos is rock because fossil=rock in the pokemon world (which is inconsistent in itself as I've pointed out already), and then there's regirock, which I've already discussed. In fact, going down through all the rock-type pokemon, only a handful are based on actual rocks - and most of them are the traditional gen-1 rock-types (which, again, are rock-ground because there were no rock-types to start with). I mean, look at Crustle - it could easily be a ground-type (apparently it's hermit crab + stratum). Corsola is coral and a water/rock type, even though coral isn't a rock (it's an animal). The hard part of coral is the skeleton part (made from calcium carbonate and things) but wait no bones are apparently ground type because cubone and marowak and bone rush. 

Also, lots of rocks aren't hard! Grab a sedimentary rock like limestone and you can probably break it up yourself pretty easily (you can scratch it with your fingernail and make sand). 


Not going to go into how sudowoodo is an exception because. It's  sudowoodo. Look at that guy. It can do whatever the hell it wants.

Let's look at ground types! sup groudon representing the lithosphere but inexplicably a ground-type, how's it going! Golett doesn't seem to make any sense - it's the automaton pokemon, which are ancient self-running machines, usually used to describe ancient robots and things, which I would think to be closer to steel than ground - but then bulbapedia also says that it's a golem (nevermind that golem means a bunch of things in pokemon apparently, which I've mentioned already). Yet none of these things represent 'the ground' in any way, really. Then you've got all the pokemon that represent sand - but wait game freak, sandstorm is rock type! More on that in a second. Then there's rhyperior, which seems to just be rock/ground purely because rhyhorn and rhydon are, even though it's covered in ~rocky~ armor. (the protector itself has the description "A protective item of some sort. It is extremely stiff and heavy. It is loved by a certain Pokémon." That sounds a lot like what you guys are saying rocks are - hard, dense stuff!)

Not going to go into gligar because. Look at it.

it can do whatever it wants Seems like game freak wanted to play with types and make a flying/ground pokemon. 



> as for the typing of the moves,  in general, moves are typed in  association with different pokemon.  Sandstorm is Rock type because it  was associated with Tyranitar when it was made.  Head Smash is the  pseudo-signature move of Rampardos, and it is only learned by rock  types.


Okay, that would make sense if:
a) sandstorm only affected rock-types
b) sandstorm were an offensive move that tyranitar could take stab from
c) if it were actually the signature move of tyranitar when it was released (hello sandshrew, onix, and all the pokemon that learn it by TM in gen 2)

But it is none of these! you can't go 'oh, well ground _is _sand' and then have sandstorm be a rock move. That either establishes that sand is pretty much the same thing in the pokemon world as rock (and the whole world is inconsistent) or that game freak just decided to make rock and ground a pretty arbitrary divide. Power Gem is learnt by all kinds of pokemon that aren't rock types, rollout is given to anything round (apparently), spikes is a ground type... because why? o.o spikes made out of sand or mud or whatever is going to be pretty useless as far as spikes go, unless they're hard like rocks or someth-- oh wait. It's also not learned by _any _ground types (cheers zhorken for that one). spike cannon is also a normal type, so apparently spikes are basically anything game freak wants them to be nevermind that only holds true in english. 

Anyway my point even is that it conceptually the types are so similar to each other that it really seems like game freak separated them arbitrarily for the type chart. I'm not going to argue with that decision because game freak are great and I love them, but I really think that's what's going on. Water and ice have such separate cultural meanings that there are lots of legends to draw from to make pokemon out of. This is not the same for rock and ground!



> Anyways, there's my two cents.  can we stop fighting about the way a game was coded now?


?_? who's fighting? I'm just interested in discussing it. If you're finding it so inflammatory then it's not like you have to participate.

*also game freak finally seemed to realise 'oh hey, gems are rock, right? neat' bless them


----------



## ElectricTogetic (Jul 24, 2012)

But they DID separate them arbitrarily for the type chart.   Rock appears to be based on the term "rock-solid," and Ground covers anything Rock that isn't considered "rock-solid."  as for the Sandstorm and Crustle thing,  I have absolutely no idea - I constantly confuse those two as being ground-type.  So I guess some things just _are._


----------



## sv_01 (Jul 24, 2012)

ultraviolet said:


> Seems like game freak wanted to play with types and make a flying/ground pokemon.


The Ground type is diverse. The ones that live underground can be considered the opposite of Flying. Gligar, however, is a Ground-type because scorpions live in deserts, so the only reason why Flying is weird is that scorpions don't fly. This part of the Ground type is more like the opposite of Water. Groudon makes the weather dry (X Water) and is insanely heavy (X Flying). But you know, some Water-types are part Ground just because they live in swamps, predict earthquakes or just are amphibians. And Stunfisk is in there because of the sand thing.

This is like saying that Victreebel is weird because it's Grass/Poison. The Poison type has two major branches. One is in a trio with Bug and Grass, and the other is their worst enemy.


----------



## ultraviolet (Jul 24, 2012)

ElectricTogetic said:


> But they DID separate them arbitrarily for the type chart.


I ... I know. That's what I've been saying for the entire thread. 



> Rock appears to be based on the term "rock-solid," and Ground covers  anything Rock that isn't considered "rock-solid."


but my point is that they did it _really _arbitrarily - you can't even separate them into things that are hard and things that aren't: Groudon, Nidoqueen/king, Donphan and Torterra are all rock-hard, armoured ground-pokemon. Omanyte and Omastar are pretty much the same (being squishy nautilus with a rocky protective shell), as well as Shuckle and Dwebble/Crustle, and they're rock-types. 

Looking at the pokemon, you _could_ say there's a split between things that _are_ earth (rock) and things that _live_ in earth (ground), but that's still kind of flimsy because where do things like Claydol come into play. But I digress!



sv_01 said:


> The Ground type is diverse. The ones that live underground can be considered the opposite of Flying. Gligar, however, is a Ground-type because scorpions live in deserts, so the only reason why Flying is weird is that scorpions don't fly. This part of the Ground type is more like the opposite of Water. Groudon makes the weather dry (X Water) and is insanely heavy (X Flying). But you know, some Water-types are part Ground just because they live in swamps, predict earthquakes or just are amphibians. And Stunfisk is in there because of the sand thing.
> 
> This is like saying that Victreebel is weird because it's Grass/Poison. The Poison type has two major branches. One is in a trio with Bug and Grass, and the other is their worst enemy.


I never said anything was wrong with gligar, it just seems the odd one out in comparison to its peers (same with sudowoodo). I do think it probably came about so there could be a ground/flying pokemon because it's kind of a neat incongruity (because flying is immune to ground). it fills a niche the same way electross does! stunfisk does this too. 

also I don't really get what you're trying to say about victreebel; poisonous plants are both a real thing and a really common monster archetype in RPGs. it's not as though they're incongruous like ground/flying! there are tons of dual-types that have one type being weak to another one - grass/water, grass/flying, etc. I mean, I wasn't trying to say anything in particular about gligar, it just amused me when I was going through the ground-type pokemon in the same way sudowoodo did.


----------

